Alan Grayson embarrasses, Michelle Obama succeeds
One of the things I hote most about this site -- in addition to the time consuming nature -- are all the whiny phone calls.
Why didn't I note this, why didn't I include that?
A friend is a big backer of Alan Grayson.
I don't mind the US House Rep. We've noted him before. We've called him out when necessary. We've included him in positive ways.
I like Alan personally.
And while we have noted Alan's campaign mailings, we don't note all of them.
He has a new one that was e-mailed to the public site a little over an hour ago (1 hour and five minutes, as I type this).
We're on the mailing list, as my friend knows.
Apparently, I was supposed to drop everything -- I'm at a party right now, we'll get back to that -- and re-post the e-mail.
The one that I didn't even know had come in -- until the angry phone call of why was I ignoring Alan!
Most friends who do stuff like that at least wait 24 hours before they call.
We're not posting Alan's piece.
Not because my friend yelled at me -- I'm more than capable of yelling back.
But because I'm a feminist and it's not my job to promote sexist trash.
That is Bill Maher.
And, as I said on the phone to my friend, I also question the value in Alan promoting Maher when Marher is seen -- rightly or wrongly, make up your own mind -- as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.
I'm not really sure what tiny tent Bill Maher brings with him in terms of support.
To which I got crap about 'It's all about feminism with you --"
Well, I am a feminist.
But anti-Muslim and anti-Arab?
You're just going to ignore those issues?
So I got off the phone and excused myself to use my host's laptop to read the Alan e-mail (which I hadn't read before announcing it would not go up here -- Bill Maher praise is enough to mean it won't go up here).
And there I found more problems.
And had to stream a documentary online.
First off, Alan: Tell your staff to stop using CRAPAPEDIA!
It's run by idiots and liars (and, yes, sexists).
And you and your office are idiots for putting in lies (that you got from Crapapedia).:
This is the same Sinclair that ran a libelmercial in 2010 claiming that President Obama had urged African-Americans to "kill some crackers."
Crappedia certainly says that was in the documentary:
Obama said in a speech, "You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of those babies."
That's an outright lie.
It goes to the lack of standards at 'Wikipedia' (it's Crapapedia, we've told you that for years).
Crapapedia posts the lie, Alan Grayson's office runs with it.
The line was stated by a group of Barack supporters who attempted voter intimidation.
It was controversial (a) because it was caught on camera and (b) because threats made to prevent people from voting are illegal and Eric Holder refused to prosecute.
Now you can think whatever you want about that.
But the special did not claim that Barack said it.
The special featured the man who said it saying those words on camera.
So Crapapedia needs to stop lying and Alan Grayson's staff needs to learn how to actually do some work.
After streaming the documentary and seeing that was not what was said, I wondered how did this lie take root?
As with most lies, Democratic Underground.
That's where the lie is first populated -- long after the special aired.
In real time?
Even Think Progress, disputing the documentary (which is bad propaganda), got it right. FromBrad Johnson's November 1, 2010 article (the documentary aired in November 2010):
“Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, has publicly advocated that trees be allowed to sue us in court, that we should engage in drastic population control by implementing forced abortions and sterilization, and that we should design a global regime to redistribute wealth.”
“During the 2008 campaign, President Obama pretended to turn his back on some extremistsfrom his past. ‘You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of those babies!'”
*********
End of excerpt.
I'm leaving Johnson's bolding in place.
Think Progress appears to be questioning John Holdren supporting forced abortions and sterilizations based on the fact that Brad Johnson has those in bold.
I have a life, I don't have time to check that out. Johnson's piece is a strong one so I will assume he got that right if he's questioning it.
But Crapapedia tells you:
The special also discusses Obama advisers Van Jones and John Holdren, as well as Obama staff Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Carol Browner, and Cass Sunstein—all in an unflattering light; in one case, the special claimed that Holdren said that trees should be permitted to sue humans in court.
Holdren did not say that.
He wrote it.
He co-wrote it in Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.
He was actually quoting -- and, by his wording, endorsing -- Christopher D. Stone from his Should Trees Have Standing?
Holdren did endorse and support Stone's view.
Now maybe he was being controversial -- something Maher always tries to be -- or maybe philosophical or playing devil's advocate or what have you. But it is quoted in the book he co-wrote and the book endorses Stone's belief.
I don't understand why Crapapedia gets away with this nonsense repeatedly.
But by completely distorting what the documentary actually presents, they give credence to the documentary because when you lie to take down someone you're really just endorsing them because no one's going to believe since you've lied.
Brad Johnson didn't have to lie to take down the documentary.
Having now streamed it, I can't believe anyone would have to lie to take it down.
Crapapedia says:
The infomercial painted Obama as an extremist, and claimed that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, he received some campaign money from the Hamas terrorist group,
Here's what the special said, via Brad Johnson:
“During his presidential election, he wound up with a record-shattering $750 million in his campaign. To this day he refuses to report from whence it came. One reason might be that some of it originated from the terrorist group Hamas, which also endorsed Obama.”
**********
The wording of that third sentence is weasely. (The passage is from the documentary, it's not Brad Johnson's writing.)
Hamas did endorse Barack.
Make of that what you will or won't.
Did Barack receive money from Hamas?
That's a charge that can't be established.
Questions were rightly raised by news outlets about the online donating process and how it did allow foreigners to donate to the US election -- which is against the law.
The Barack campaign stated they returned funds whenever they were aware the money came from outsiders.
I have no reason to doubt that they did.
They did, however, lack proper screening for online donations.
This was said to have been addressed after the primaries.
Could Hamas have donated?
Yes.
But there's no proof that they did.
There's no proof that, if they had donated, Barack would have known about it.
It was a weasel charge and the documentary's full of them -- cases in which careful wording implies something happened and/or was proven when that wasn't the case.
And Bill Maher is a weasel as well, he does not tell the truth as Alan Grayson tries to insist.
Hatred of women is not the truth.
Tongue bathing Barack is not the truth.
Bill Maher was a Libertarian but decided he was a Democrat when Barack first ran for the presidency.
He has repeatedly failed to hold Barack accountable in the limited ways that his commentaries and statements held Bully Boy Bush accountable.
Let's move over to First Lady Michelle Obama.
Friday, she made some remarks on American Sniper.
I thought they were wise remarks (a) with regards to the film and (b) with regards to connecting with veterans.
I thought (and continue to hope) this may mean the next two years won't be about Michelle as wife-of or national scold.
The country doesn't need to be told how to eat by anyone.
We all have to eat and anyone telling us how is going to look like a scold.
Nancy Reagan said "Just Say No" and endured jokes as a result. But at the end of the day, she was referring to drugs and telling children to say "no" so most could support that message.
What we eat is very personal.
Equally true, it also has to do with how much money we make, with where we live and our access to fresh produce.
Anyone positioning themselves as the voice of what America must eat is going to be seen as a scold.
I have no idea why they chose to make that Michelle's issue.
It was sheer stupidity.
And, no, it wasn't her issue.
It was the issue certain 'experts' were sure would win her approval.
Instead, she's still attacked for it and most aren't defending her because it's such a stupid issue. You are never going to win people over with issues that touch on what you should eat.
Michelle, at one point, had a speech where she noted the benefits of drinking water and a campaign that asked you to drink a glass more of water a day or even eat one more fresh fruit or vegetable a week would have had more luck succeeding.
Instead, to some she came off bossy, to some she came off out of touch, etc.
She is far from perfect (true of me, true of most people on this earth) but she has had a very rough road to walk because some of her biggest 'helpers' are such idiots. (Valerie Jarrett, to her credit, did warn that the food campaign could hurt Michelle's likability -- but when men are in the room, they just know everything, don't they?).
With the earlier event this week (Saudi Arabia) and with Friday's remarks, it gives me hope that she's going to pursue issues she really cares about.
(Food was pushed off on her because it was 'a woman's issue' and the male advisors felt Michelle came off "too strong" and this would soften her. Never try to soften a strong woman, celebrate her. Celebrate her strength and you'll see a lot of Americans joining you in that.)
An actress friend who is tight with Michelle phoned to insist that I was ignoring Michelle and all she'd done this week.
Do I do the "Michelle Obama snapshot" five times a week?
No.
More to the point, where am I right now?
I'm at an industry party advocating for a friend whose nominated for a supporting Academy Award and for a Best Picture that is not American Sniper.
I have friends who produced and directed an amazing film, a film I'm honestly in love with. Their film is what I am campaigning for.
Now were I the Weinsteins, this would mean I would attack every other film, spread negative lies about the other nominees, etc.
I haven't done that to American Sniper. And I've written that I truly believe Bradley Cooper's performance is worthy of the Academy Award.
I have twice defended the film here in lengthy pieces.
Ava and I did two pieces at Third defending the film.
Again, I won't be voting for it and I'm not campaigning for it.
It is not my job to promote it.
While being more than fair to American Sniper, I have not once used this site or Third to promote the film -- its name has never appeared here or at Third.
If people are unhappy with what's up here, please start your own website.
I mean that not just in a "Leave me alone!" manner but also because you should have your own. We need more opinions, we need diversity. We do not need conformity.
Equally true, our rebel stance of 2004 and 2005 is probably old hat now and fresh blood is more than sorely needed.
In terms of Michelle, let me close this entry out on her.
They tried to put her in a box early in the primary campaign.
By the 2008 DNC convention, she was lost and over managed.
You saw someone scared to express themselves.
(Some will argue it was because of the 'for the first time . . .' remark. More was made of that remark in the Barack campaign than by the press. She was offered feedback that I said then and say now was actually bullying -- I'm referring to feedback from Barack's advisors.)
The advisors and press then tried to turn a grown woman into a fashion model.
That was beyond stupid.
Then came the scold.
And in the last years the best term for her would be "adrift."
This week, my opinion, belongs to Michelle Obama.
She got a chance to demonstrate why she does have loyal fans and why she's inspired people.
I'm not talking about as First Lady.
Michelle had many admirers before 2007.
She had those because she has skill, she has strength and she's very smart.
This week, she had a chance to show that side of herself and, except for some carping from Ronan Farrow's idiotic MSNBC show, America was impressed -- as we all should be.
Hopefully, the next two years for Michelle will be about that. Being herself, showing her comfort in who she is and what she believes.
And rejecting any efforts to silence her own voice which is a pretty amazing voice when she actually gets to use it.
And let me quickly note these four non-community sites because I probably won't be online again tonight:
Why didn't I note this, why didn't I include that?
A friend is a big backer of Alan Grayson.
I don't mind the US House Rep. We've noted him before. We've called him out when necessary. We've included him in positive ways.
I like Alan personally.
And while we have noted Alan's campaign mailings, we don't note all of them.
He has a new one that was e-mailed to the public site a little over an hour ago (1 hour and five minutes, as I type this).
We're on the mailing list, as my friend knows.
Apparently, I was supposed to drop everything -- I'm at a party right now, we'll get back to that -- and re-post the e-mail.
The one that I didn't even know had come in -- until the angry phone call of why was I ignoring Alan!
Most friends who do stuff like that at least wait 24 hours before they call.
We're not posting Alan's piece.
Not because my friend yelled at me -- I'm more than capable of yelling back.
But because I'm a feminist and it's not my job to promote sexist trash.
That is Bill Maher.
And, as I said on the phone to my friend, I also question the value in Alan promoting Maher when Marher is seen -- rightly or wrongly, make up your own mind -- as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.
I'm not really sure what tiny tent Bill Maher brings with him in terms of support.
To which I got crap about 'It's all about feminism with you --"
Well, I am a feminist.
But anti-Muslim and anti-Arab?
You're just going to ignore those issues?
So I got off the phone and excused myself to use my host's laptop to read the Alan e-mail (which I hadn't read before announcing it would not go up here -- Bill Maher praise is enough to mean it won't go up here).
And there I found more problems.
And had to stream a documentary online.
First off, Alan: Tell your staff to stop using CRAPAPEDIA!
It's run by idiots and liars (and, yes, sexists).
And you and your office are idiots for putting in lies (that you got from Crapapedia).:
This is the same Sinclair that ran a libelmercial in 2010 claiming that President Obama had urged African-Americans to "kill some crackers."
Crappedia certainly says that was in the documentary:
Obama said in a speech, "You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of those babies."
That's an outright lie.
It goes to the lack of standards at 'Wikipedia' (it's Crapapedia, we've told you that for years).
Crapapedia posts the lie, Alan Grayson's office runs with it.
The line was stated by a group of Barack supporters who attempted voter intimidation.
It was controversial (a) because it was caught on camera and (b) because threats made to prevent people from voting are illegal and Eric Holder refused to prosecute.
Now you can think whatever you want about that.
But the special did not claim that Barack said it.
The special featured the man who said it saying those words on camera.
So Crapapedia needs to stop lying and Alan Grayson's staff needs to learn how to actually do some work.
After streaming the documentary and seeing that was not what was said, I wondered how did this lie take root?
As with most lies, Democratic Underground.
That's where the lie is first populated -- long after the special aired.
In real time?
Even Think Progress, disputing the documentary (which is bad propaganda), got it right. FromBrad Johnson's November 1, 2010 article (the documentary aired in November 2010):
“Obama’s science czar, John Holdren, has publicly advocated that trees be allowed to sue us in court, that we should engage in drastic population control by implementing forced abortions and sterilization, and that we should design a global regime to redistribute wealth.”
“During the 2008 campaign, President Obama pretended to turn his back on some extremistsfrom his past. ‘You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You gonna have to kill some of those babies!'”
*********
End of excerpt.
I'm leaving Johnson's bolding in place.
Think Progress appears to be questioning John Holdren supporting forced abortions and sterilizations based on the fact that Brad Johnson has those in bold.
I have a life, I don't have time to check that out. Johnson's piece is a strong one so I will assume he got that right if he's questioning it.
But Crapapedia tells you:
The special also discusses Obama advisers Van Jones and John Holdren, as well as Obama staff Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Carol Browner, and Cass Sunstein—all in an unflattering light; in one case, the special claimed that Holdren said that trees should be permitted to sue humans in court.
Holdren did not say that.
He wrote it.
He co-wrote it in Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.
He was actually quoting -- and, by his wording, endorsing -- Christopher D. Stone from his Should Trees Have Standing?
Holdren did endorse and support Stone's view.
Now maybe he was being controversial -- something Maher always tries to be -- or maybe philosophical or playing devil's advocate or what have you. But it is quoted in the book he co-wrote and the book endorses Stone's belief.
I don't understand why Crapapedia gets away with this nonsense repeatedly.
But by completely distorting what the documentary actually presents, they give credence to the documentary because when you lie to take down someone you're really just endorsing them because no one's going to believe since you've lied.
Brad Johnson didn't have to lie to take down the documentary.
Having now streamed it, I can't believe anyone would have to lie to take it down.
Crapapedia says:
The infomercial painted Obama as an extremist, and claimed that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, he received some campaign money from the Hamas terrorist group,
Here's what the special said, via Brad Johnson:
“During his presidential election, he wound up with a record-shattering $750 million in his campaign. To this day he refuses to report from whence it came. One reason might be that some of it originated from the terrorist group Hamas, which also endorsed Obama.”
**********
The wording of that third sentence is weasely. (The passage is from the documentary, it's not Brad Johnson's writing.)
Hamas did endorse Barack.
Make of that what you will or won't.
Did Barack receive money from Hamas?
That's a charge that can't be established.
Questions were rightly raised by news outlets about the online donating process and how it did allow foreigners to donate to the US election -- which is against the law.
The Barack campaign stated they returned funds whenever they were aware the money came from outsiders.
I have no reason to doubt that they did.
They did, however, lack proper screening for online donations.
This was said to have been addressed after the primaries.
Could Hamas have donated?
Yes.
But there's no proof that they did.
There's no proof that, if they had donated, Barack would have known about it.
It was a weasel charge and the documentary's full of them -- cases in which careful wording implies something happened and/or was proven when that wasn't the case.
And Bill Maher is a weasel as well, he does not tell the truth as Alan Grayson tries to insist.
Hatred of women is not the truth.
Tongue bathing Barack is not the truth.
Bill Maher was a Libertarian but decided he was a Democrat when Barack first ran for the presidency.
He has repeatedly failed to hold Barack accountable in the limited ways that his commentaries and statements held Bully Boy Bush accountable.
Let's move over to First Lady Michelle Obama.
Friday, she made some remarks on American Sniper.
I thought they were wise remarks (a) with regards to the film and (b) with regards to connecting with veterans.
I thought (and continue to hope) this may mean the next two years won't be about Michelle as wife-of or national scold.
The country doesn't need to be told how to eat by anyone.
We all have to eat and anyone telling us how is going to look like a scold.
Nancy Reagan said "Just Say No" and endured jokes as a result. But at the end of the day, she was referring to drugs and telling children to say "no" so most could support that message.
What we eat is very personal.
Equally true, it also has to do with how much money we make, with where we live and our access to fresh produce.
Anyone positioning themselves as the voice of what America must eat is going to be seen as a scold.
I have no idea why they chose to make that Michelle's issue.
It was sheer stupidity.
And, no, it wasn't her issue.
It was the issue certain 'experts' were sure would win her approval.
Instead, she's still attacked for it and most aren't defending her because it's such a stupid issue. You are never going to win people over with issues that touch on what you should eat.
Michelle, at one point, had a speech where she noted the benefits of drinking water and a campaign that asked you to drink a glass more of water a day or even eat one more fresh fruit or vegetable a week would have had more luck succeeding.
Instead, to some she came off bossy, to some she came off out of touch, etc.
She is far from perfect (true of me, true of most people on this earth) but she has had a very rough road to walk because some of her biggest 'helpers' are such idiots. (Valerie Jarrett, to her credit, did warn that the food campaign could hurt Michelle's likability -- but when men are in the room, they just know everything, don't they?).
With the earlier event this week (Saudi Arabia) and with Friday's remarks, it gives me hope that she's going to pursue issues she really cares about.
(Food was pushed off on her because it was 'a woman's issue' and the male advisors felt Michelle came off "too strong" and this would soften her. Never try to soften a strong woman, celebrate her. Celebrate her strength and you'll see a lot of Americans joining you in that.)
An actress friend who is tight with Michelle phoned to insist that I was ignoring Michelle and all she'd done this week.
Do I do the "Michelle Obama snapshot" five times a week?
No.
More to the point, where am I right now?
I'm at an industry party advocating for a friend whose nominated for a supporting Academy Award and for a Best Picture that is not American Sniper.
I have friends who produced and directed an amazing film, a film I'm honestly in love with. Their film is what I am campaigning for.
Now were I the Weinsteins, this would mean I would attack every other film, spread negative lies about the other nominees, etc.
I haven't done that to American Sniper. And I've written that I truly believe Bradley Cooper's performance is worthy of the Academy Award.
I have twice defended the film here in lengthy pieces.
Ava and I did two pieces at Third defending the film.
Again, I won't be voting for it and I'm not campaigning for it.
It is not my job to promote it.
While being more than fair to American Sniper, I have not once used this site or Third to promote the film -- its name has never appeared here or at Third.
If people are unhappy with what's up here, please start your own website.
I mean that not just in a "Leave me alone!" manner but also because you should have your own. We need more opinions, we need diversity. We do not need conformity.
Equally true, our rebel stance of 2004 and 2005 is probably old hat now and fresh blood is more than sorely needed.
In terms of Michelle, let me close this entry out on her.
They tried to put her in a box early in the primary campaign.
By the 2008 DNC convention, she was lost and over managed.
You saw someone scared to express themselves.
(Some will argue it was because of the 'for the first time . . .' remark. More was made of that remark in the Barack campaign than by the press. She was offered feedback that I said then and say now was actually bullying -- I'm referring to feedback from Barack's advisors.)
The advisors and press then tried to turn a grown woman into a fashion model.
That was beyond stupid.
Then came the scold.
And in the last years the best term for her would be "adrift."
This week, my opinion, belongs to Michelle Obama.
She got a chance to demonstrate why she does have loyal fans and why she's inspired people.
I'm not talking about as First Lady.
Michelle had many admirers before 2007.
She had those because she has skill, she has strength and she's very smart.
This week, she had a chance to show that side of herself and, except for some carping from Ronan Farrow's idiotic MSNBC show, America was impressed -- as we all should be.
Hopefully, the next two years for Michelle will be about that. Being herself, showing her comfort in who she is and what she believes.
And rejecting any efforts to silence her own voice which is a pretty amazing voice when she actually gets to use it.
And let me quickly note these four non-community sites because I probably won't be online again tonight:
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment